2023 (11) TMI 1216 - HC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of Forum non-conveniens - Seeking permission to Appellant to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations - Appellant's father received a message from the Respondent School that due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018, the Appellant was debarred from attending the Respondent School - HELD THAT - On an examination of the peculiar facts and circumstances that have led to the present appeal, it is evident that the grievance of the Appellant emerges from the actions of the Respondent School which is located in Uttar Pradesh. This Court had directed the Respondent School to conduct Grade VIII examinations for the Appellant, not the CBSE. Therefore, contrary to the contention of the Appellant, in effect, the Appellant is seeking compensation from the CBSE not for any decision/action taken by the CBSE but instead due to an alleged failure of the CBSE to regulate the actions of the Respondent School. It is a settled position of law that where only a small part of the cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, the same cannot automatically clothe the Court with jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, the Court is obligated to follow the doctrine of forum conveniens. Division Bench of this Court in M/S SHRISTI UDAIPUR HOTELS AND RESROTS (P) LTD VERSUS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 2014 (5) TMI 1231 - DELHI HIGH COURT dealt with a similar issue and observed that where the most vital parts of the cause of action have arisen elsewhere, the mere presence of the registered office of the Respondent in Delhi would be irrelevant in determining territorial jurisdiction as it amounts to a miniscule part of the cause of action. The principle emerging from Shristi Udaipur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In essence, the basis of the Appellant's claim for compensation is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located. Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has failed to produce any material establishing that the grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the actions of the CBSE, we cannot but conclude that this Court is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of this matter. It must be noted that the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. Thus, the Clause has to be interpreted purposively to include within its ambit only those cases where the cause of action is attributable to the CBSE. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgement. Accordingly, the present LPA is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are forum non-conveniens, territorial jurisdiction, interpretation of CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Forum Non-Conveniens:
The Appellant filed a writ petition seeking compensation from CBSE for alleged harassment and trauma. The Ld. Single Judge dismissed the petition on grounds of non-conveniens, emphasizing that the cause of action did not directly implicate CBSE but rather the actions of the Respondent School. The Appellant argued that CBSE's headquarters being in Delhi conferred jurisdiction to this Court, citing CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws. However, the Court held that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located, making this Court not the appropriate forum for adjudication.

Territorial Jurisdiction and Doctrine of Forum Conveniens:
The Appellant contended that Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws designates Delhi as the legal jurisdiction for suits against CBSE. However, the Court rejected a strict interpretation of the Clause, stating that the doctrine of forum conveniens must prevail to determine the most suitable forum for dispute resolution. The Court emphasized that the Clause should only apply when the cause of action directly involves CBSE, which was not the case in this matter. The Court also highlighted that the Appellant failed to establish a direct link between CBSE's actions and the grievance, further supporting the dismissal of the petition.

Interpretation of Legal Precedents:
The judgment referred to various legal precedents to support the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens. It cited cases where the Court declined jurisdiction when the significant parts of the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Court underscored the importance of considering convenience, expenses, and the law related to the dispute in determining the appropriate forum for adjudication. The judgment reiterated that a mere presence of the Respondent's office in Delhi does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction if the crucial aspects of the cause of action are elsewhere.

Conclusion:
The Court, after a thorough examination of the facts and legal principles, upheld the Ld. Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition. It emphasized that the Appellant's claim primarily stemmed from the actions of the Respondent School in Uttar Pradesh, making this Court unsuitable for adjudication. The Court reiterated that the doctrine of forum conveniens must guide jurisdictional decisions, and a strict interpretation of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws would not override this principle. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present LPA, clarifying that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.